Missed the RCMP memo?

[psionx]

Alberta database has a purge on RCMP frequencies?

Did I miss something?

Or an error?

 

[kayn1n32008]

They are there. Looks like someone made an error with the trucking common channels. They are NOT narrowband

 

[kayn1n32008]

Why are the PACS repeaters being deleted from the individual counties/towns?

 

[psionx]

Not sure, thats why I made this thread.

 

[kayn1n32008]

Not sure, thats why I made this thread.

My question was directed at the new Alberta DB admin who frequents the forum.

 

[psionx]

Then maybe mssg the db admin directly and ask.

I would of done that but I was using this thread to ask members... maybe they new some big change that was happening.

I was may sure the db admin had a reason to edit.

 

[kayn1n32008]

Rather keep it public than go to PM/Email. Nothing has changed, but for some reason he has taken it upon himself to remove all the RCMP data.

 

[QDP2012]

The revision-effort seems to also involve updates to the related RR Wiki pages. I'm not sure if any data has been moved from the DB to the Wiki, or not.

Hope this helps,

 

[omrail]

I wounder also

 

[wa8pyr]

Duplicate removal

All,

The Alberta administrator is doing some much-needed cleanup and removing duplicate frequency listings. The frequency pairs and PL tones are shared province-wide, so multiple listings of them are unnecessary and contrary to RadioReference policy.

If you have any constructive suggestions, I'm sure he would love to hear them.

Tom

 

[mciupa]

Why are the PACS repeaters being deleted from the individual counties/towns?

It is against the policy of the RadioReference site to duplicate frequencies at the county level.
The correct format is to display as it is here: RCMP K Division Scanner Frequencies and Radio Frequency Reference

As with your own job I'm sure you follow SOP's and procedures. The guideline we follow here on RadioReference is stated here from the Database Administrator handbook.

http://wiki.radioreference.com/imag...e.com_Database_Administrator_Handbook_1.8.pdf

Please view Section 6.2.2.

Instead of having A2 for instance duplicated up to eight times in the province, it is now correctly listed once.

The county information is now displayed properly on the Wiki page: RCMP K Division (AB) - The RadioReference Wiki)

There was a discussion and as per the standards in the Admin Handbook and we brought someone in as a new admin to ensure things are checked and are added with local knowledge.

I did the yeoman work for five years but I don't live in Alberta. We are better off having a resident look after the province.

 

[kayn1n32008]

Thanks for clearing it up.

Frankly What a waste of time having to program every RCMP channel when going to an unfamiliar location... So much easier to know when I go to Stoneyplain, for example, that B5 would be the channel to program, rather than programming all 50-ish frequencies and scan... Then having to figure out which one of about 10 repeaters that are able to be received in Stoneyplain is the right one.

What ever though... Thank you for clearing up the reason why.

I'm assuming this will also happen in BC as well?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[mciupa]

Thanks for clearing it up.

Frankly What a waste of time having to program every RCMP channel when going to an unfamiliar location... So much easier to know when I go to Stoneyplain, for example, that B5 would be the channel to program, rather than programming all 50-ish frequencies and scan... Then having to figure out which one of about 10 repeaters that are able to be received in Stoneyplain is the right one.

What ever though... Thank you for clearing up the reason why.

I'm assuming this will also happen in BC as well?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You know if I was still doing DB Admin duties for BC, I'd be on it like white on rice.

The onus is on the BC Admins to make the corrections.

 

[SCPD]

For those that use location based scanning, this makes no sense. Glad I don't use the database due to its inaccuracies.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[mciupa]

Remember we are looking for constructive suggestions.

Is that all you've got?

 

[SCPD]

Yup, from someone that submits a lot of data on afrrcs, I submit a lot of constructive suggestions for the database. Oh well, some people appriciate it and others don't. Whatever.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[kayn1n32008]

Remember we are looking for constructive suggestions.



Is that all you've got?

Re-read post 12 and 14. I would say those are pretty constructive comments about the database. One from one member who travels around this province LOTS and another member who travels around this province even more than the other, that has taken location based scanning idea to an extreme.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Jay911]

I'm assuming this will also happen in BC as well?

BC has been messed up for ages. I was trying to clean it up around the time I removed myself as an admin (unrelated, as you all know). There are still remnants of it lingering, like the BCAS listings which include all the frequencies that the trucks have in their mobiles, including RCMP and trucking common, entered as BCAS frequencies in the DB.

To be honest, it's not the end of the world for me if the RCMP freqs are listed in one provincewide batch vs individual repeaters in each town. So long as the provincewide batch is known to be complete and accurate. For years there have been people who will say "Well, of course that's B17 - Anytown, AB uses that as their main repeater, has done so for years" - but until that statement was made, only that person and a select few others he converses with away from RR knew that B17 even existed, because it wasn't being shared with the rest of us. Some of you have differing ideas about what it means to share things with the other people in the hobby, and that's your choice - but don't complain about the RRDB being wrong when you refuse to share this info. (And yes, I know, very much so, that some people can't share some data for reasons - but I'm talking about the people who will sneer and say "Of course that's channel such-and-such, I've had it listed that way in my records since 1988" - you're obviously not averse to sharing the info, but you refuse to do so until it makes you look good.)

I can see the reasoning behind wanting to have some kind of local label attached to a channel - there are places in this province, even local to me, where I can pick up B5 for example and not know which town/detachment I'm hearing.

It's pointless to get ranty about it, though - A, the data is still there, and if you want to keep it in a geographical configuration in your radio, you're welcome to do so, and 2, it's doubtful it'll be around for more than a year or 18 months at the longest anyway...

 

[kayn1n32008]

BC has been messed up for ages. I was trying to clean it up around the time I removed myself as an admin (unrelated, as you all know). There are still remnants of it lingering, like the BCAS listings which include all the frequencies that the trucks have in their mobiles, including RCMP and trucking common, entered as BCAS frequencies in the DB.



To be honest, it's not the end of the world for me if the RCMP freqs are listed in one provincewide batch vs individual repeaters in each town. So long as the provincewide batch is known to be complete and accurate. For years there have been people who will say "Well, of course that's B17 - Anytown, AB uses that as their main repeater, has done so for years" - but until that statement was made, only that person and a select few others he converses with away from RR knew that B17 even existed, because it wasn't being shared with the rest of us. Some of you have differing ideas about what it means to share things with the other people in the hobby, and that's your choice - but don't complain about the RRDB being wrong when you refuse to share this info. (And yes, I know, very much so, that some people can't share some data for reasons - but I'm talking about the people who will sneer and say "Of course that's channel such-and-such, I've had it listed that way in my records since 1988" - you're obviously not averse to sharing the info, but you refuse to do so until it makes you look good.)



I can see the reasoning behind wanting to have some kind of local label attached to a channel - there are places in this province, even local to me, where I can pick up B5 for example and not know which town/detachment I'm hearing.



It's pointless to get ranty about it, though - A, the data is still there, and if you want to keep it in a geographical configuration in your radio, you're welcome to do so, and 2, it's doubtful it'll be around for more than a year or 18 months at the longest anyway...

In no way am I complaining about people sharing, or not sharing. Rather needing to enter 50+ frequencies and needing to scan them to find the local repeater. Even then having to sort through potentially being able to hear 5-15 repeaters, all at similar signal strengths, and trying to figure out what belongs where.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[mciupa]

Jay911's last paragraph sums it up nicely.

Policy stands and I want to thank everyone for their points of view.

Continue your discussions.